JFK Assassin's Rifle

[Citadelgrad87]

I'm sorry that you would question what level my critical thinking is. I think that it's pretty good. Do you infer that I'm not up to par because I disagree with you?

Look, arguing this case is like arguing over politics and religion. It can and will, go on and on.

Almost every item of so called "evidence" of conspiracy or not, can be legitimately questioned in this case. I happen to believe that it was a conspiracy and that the Warren Commission purposely covered it up.

You believe in the "lone gunman/nut theory." So be it. I won't ever change your mind, nor will you change mine.

I used to work for Joe Ball, the lead and most experienced attorney on the commission. He was a dyed in the wool camelot buying liberal. Jfk was his idol. He was also brilliant. One of the smartest people I know.

There is zero chance that he would assist anyone covering up this crime, and it was not possible to conceal a crime in this instance from a man in his position with his capabilities.

The evidence cannot be legitimately questioned. There is a mountain of evidence, it all points to oswald alone, and nowhere else.

Of course, youre free to discount every eyewitness to every crime, claim that no one could see that well, etc. If we go that route, every crime is unsolvable.

I wont think that way, particularly when the conspiracists seek to sell books.

The best book is by vincent bugliosi, another liberal, who successfully prosecuted oswald in a very well conducted trial defended by gerry spence. THAT spence.

Bugliosi destroys every conspiracy theory ive ever heard of in a way that is unassailable, except that its long.

If youve read reclaiming history and still beleive in some grand secret conspiracy, we may as well finish the thread now

[B Strong]

I'm sorry that you would question what level my critical thinking is. I think that it's pretty good. Do you infer that I'm not up to par because I disagree with you?

Look, arguing this case is like arguing over politics and religion. It can and will, go on and on.

Almost every item of so called "evidence" of conspiracy or not, can be legitimately questioned in this case. I happen to believe that it was a conspiracy and that the Warren Commission purposely covered it up.

You believe in the "lone gunman/nut theory." So be it. I won't ever change your mind, nor will you change mine.

I in no way meant my comment to be an insult - I know some very smart folks that question anything and everything...right up to the point where they hear something or see something they want to believe.

I've made the same mistakes in my life in my perception of people/places/things and I need to constantly remind myself that because "so and so" said something doesn't mean what they said is true or that "so and so" even knows what the hell they are talking about.

Best example I can cite is the way the supporters of gun control take it on faith that their "feelings" on the subject trump the facts - how many times have you heard the term "high-powered" assault weapon or "Cop-Killer" bullets? I've in person discussed it with someone who when I provided in hand a 45/70 round and a 5.56 round for examination and described the differences, only to be told that I obviously didn't know what I was talking about. Seriously.

I'm familiar w/ the Warren report and the later house committee report and the few questions raised that point in different directions don't stand up to examination when viewed against the totality of physical evidence and the actual statements of Marina Oswald (particularly the Walker assassination attempt) and other individuals that were familiar w/ LHO - the man was a loser and blamed the whole world for his failures - Were he alive today he'd be the happiest man on the planet being discussed by strangers on a 'net forum.

What is it that suggests to you that a conspiracy was in play?

[Citadelgrad87]

Probably the best book I have read about the assassination is William Garrison's book.

Posner has an agenda, just like everyone else, and that is; his opinion, which trumps all others.

Are you of the opinion that Jack Ruby shot Oswald for the reason he (Ruby) gave; "that he wanted to spare Jackie Kennedy the trauma of going through a trial."

I believe that anyone familiar with Rubys movements from Friday to Sunday knows for a certainty that if he was in any was tasked with killing Oswald for someone else, he would Have done so Friday when he was right next to him, and would NOT have been standing in line atwestern union sending $20 to a dancer FOUR minutes before he pulled the trigger on Sunday. Nobody's that cool. Nobody can read the timeline and suggest that Ruby would have done it that way if he planned it out.

Plus no one has EVER been able to explain how having Ruby in prison for life was better than having Oswald in prison. Plus Oswald did speak for over 10 hours, again, he did speak and could have told the cops anything.

You need to step back and ask why anyone would do it that way if you believe otherwise.

[vincewarde]

Have YOU seen the ad? That wasn't "just a few dollars more" for a garand.

Thanks for posting the ad. IMHO, the fact that Oswald was armed with that rifle completely rules out a well financed conspiracy. If that was what he was involved in, he would have had a better rifle.

After decades of leaning towards conspiracy I have been convinced my several recent documentaries that actually argue that the Warren Commission was right in it's conclusion. Additionally I have seen so many conspiracies get the ballistics all wrong.

PBS, of all people, actually did excellent documentary in which they account for all three shots, all three bullets and prove that shots from other locations would have left a great deal of evidence we just don't see.

It's available for streaming HERE

[Che762x39]

Since that day in 1963. I remember it well. My opinion has changed several times over the past 50+ years.

[dfletcher]

Almost every item of so called "evidence" of conspiracy or not, can be legitimately questioned in this case. I happen to believe that it was a conspiracy and that the Warren Commission purposely covered it up.

The question is - on what evidence is that belief based and what is the quality of that evidence? Believing something for which little or no evidence exists is called "faith" and faith is simply insufficient when it comes to proving things.

As science improves we see the "single bullet theory" a reasonable occurance. As those around the event get older, pass away we see additional information come to light. And the basics of the event all demonstrate LHO as the lone assassin. The physical evidence points one way.

Trying to disprove a negative is impossible, and coming close to it always leaves the CT an out. "Oswald was in the doorway" is disproved by the person being ID'd as Billy Lovelady - but then the assertion is made the photo is not real. The "three tramps" and the "umbrella man" were rather quickly ID'd yet theories persist. Those "curtain rods" supposedly brought in that day - never found. But I suppose the CT folks would assert they were found and spirited away.

If the CT folks have a conclusion based on evidence atthe scene, not another of those "what about this .....?" questions let them state it. Let's have their conclusions subject to the same scrutiny they put forth.

[MmmSti]

I'm not stating I believe one way or the other, but as I sat at home sick today with nothing better to do I checked out a few documentaries. I do have to say the fatal shot does not SEEM consistent with the 6.5 round. It does seem much more consistent with a frangible 5.56 round.

But what do I know. I am far from a ballistics expert nor have I seen the physical evidence myself.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Citadelgrad87]

I'm not stating I believe one way or the other, but as I sat at home sick today with nothing better to do I checked out a few documentaries. I do have to say the fatal shot does not SEEM consistent with the 6.5 round. It does seem much more consistent with a frangible 5.56 round.

But what do I know. I am far from a ballistics expert nor have I seen the physical evidence myself.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I understand your impressions. I recently saw some documentary somewhere that fired carcano 6.5 rounds into, iirc human skulls with gelatin in them to simulate the liquidity of the brain tissue. They found that penetrating the skull and entering the brain causes dramatic yaw and explosive results, and demonstrated that several times. So the same heavy jacketed military round does one thing in muscle, and something totally different in brain like material.

The problem with the 556 theory is that so many people would HAVE to be in on it, meaning all in, for it to have worked, and at a time where the people being asked to lie could not know if the big lie would work based on whomever was really shooting, where they were, and if those bullets were accounted for. If all of oswalds shots hit something, then the " extra" shot from the 556 would be instantly apparent.

Also, don't forget that only two of over a hundred witnesses say they heard shots coming from two directions.

[MissiontoMars]

Probably because it was $19.95 shipped with a scope:



It's a handy rifle/scope combo, actually. I've got one myself. Paid a bit more than $19.95 though.




View through the scope...kinda spooky!

Thats a beauty!

[B Strong]

Probably the best book I have read about the assassination is William Garrison's book.

Posner has an agenda, just like everyone else, and that is; his opinion, which trumps all others.

Are you of the opinion that Jack Ruby shot Oswald for the reason he (Ruby) gave; "that he wanted to spare Jackie Kennedy the trauma of going through a trial."

Don't you mean Jim Garrison?

[B Strong]

I understand your impressions. I recently saw some documentary somewhere that fired carcano 6.5 rounds into, iirc human skulls with gelatin in them to simulate the liquidity of the brain tissue. They found that penetrating the skull and entering the brain causes dramatic yaw and explosive results, and demonstrated that several times. So the same heavy jacketed military round does one thing in muscle, and something totally different in brain like material.

The problem with the 556 theory is that so many people would HAVE to be in on it, meaning all in, for it to have worked, and at a time where the people being asked to lie could not know if the big lie would work based on whomever was really shooting, where they were, and if those bullets were accounted for. If all of oswalds shots hit something, then the " extra" shot from the 556 would be instantly apparent.

Also, don't forget that only two of over a hundred witnesses say they heard shots coming from two directions.

The real problem is that at the time of the assassination, the only two rounds available for the 5.56/.223 was a 55 grain fmj and a 55 grain soft point - even the varmint shooters hadn't yet gotten into the act with their various ligt weight rounds, and no government agency uses reloads for duty use, then or now.

[44fred]

My thought on this whole subject is pretty straight forward.
1) Plenty had motive
2) Warren was not the best for the job of investigating the assassination
3) This is politics
4) I don't trust any Government to come up with the absolute truth
5) Every "theory" has questions that have not been answered
6) Makes for good debate and interesting to say the least
7) This has been discussed so much, if we were told the truth, we wouldn't believe it
8) I accept this, just like other things I don't understand, I'll never know this side of heaven what really happened

[dfletcher]

Probably the best book I have read about the assassination is William Garrison's book.

Posner has an agenda, just like everyone else, and that is; his opinion, which trumps all others.

Are you of the opinion that Jack Ruby shot Oswald for the reason he (Ruby) gave; "that he wanted to spare Jackie Kennedy the trauma of going through a trial."

What makes Garrison's book the best? What other books have you read, and are they for or against conspiracy?

I don't know why Ruby shot Oswald, he gave differing reasons to include showing "Jews have balls" to being PO'd at the smirk he supposedly saw on Oswald's face. His actions that AM, and the random circumstances of the timing (his an Oswald's) make clear the meeting was happenstance.

[Josh3239]

According to several people who knew Jack Ruby, they have said that Ruby did it because he thought the country would believe he is a hero. Like a hero he killed the bad guy, saved the girl (Jackie Kennedy from trial), and got vengeance for the entire country. He believed the country would back him and he would never see the inside of a court room. He believed that he would be able to walk into any bar and he would never have to buy a drink for himself again.

[chuckdc]

I recommend Case Closed by Posner, it's not prefect, but it's a fairly thorough debunking of almost everything any conspiracist has ever shoveled.

Yup. It's about as good as you can do, decades after the fact.


Oh, and about the AR-15 thought.. where is the ejected shell casing? If an AR had been fired, there'd have been a 5.56 casing somewhere within about 15-20 feet (probably to the right and backwards) of where he was standing. Especially at that time, that would have DEFINITELY been noticed, as .223/5.56 was not in common use at all.

Been to Dealey Plaza. It isn't that big. Next time I'll have to take the tour.